There's nothing obtuse about pointing out where the alleged linguistic victim used the same terms in referring to herself or her husband. I'm sorry, Northgate, but you made it sound like Faux News came up with that "slur." They didn't. They took Michelle's lead. Bueno?

You guys go for it re: McCain. Just don't pretend that you have some moral high ground afterwards, K? You're defending the very thing that you were outraged about when it happened to Kerry.

Shoe, other foot. Other foot, shoe... political expedience rules the day in the value-less and unprincipled times we live in.

What? I love how you dance around the point without ever really addressing the actual question.

The point is that downplaying someone's military record used to be taboo. Before it benefitted Obama. But hey, however you can justify it to yourself will definitely work for you. Overall, the veterans I know were rather put-off by the whole thing.

Quote:

Personally I'd never vote for someone who suffers from PTSD after several years of incarceration and torture. There's no way that person is not damaged goods.

Yea, I know how that goes. I'd never vote for someone who has lived in California. There is no way that someone who has lived there is not damaged goods.

The point is that downplaying someone's military record used to be taboo. Before it benefitted Obama. But hey, however you can justify it to yourself will definitely work for you. Overall, the veterans I know were rather put-off by the whole thing.

Clark said something like getting shot down is not a qualification to be President.

He didn't say McCain never got shot down, or he got shot down because of pilot error, or that he only got boo-boos when in prison. Tell me you understand the goddamn difference.

How did Clark downplay McCain's military record? Please explain this to me.

We're like 10 posts into this and you're still unwilling/unable to explain.

Well, I guess it depends on what you believe.

To "downplay" something means to make it less important than it really is. If you believe getting shot down is a qualification to be President, Clark downplayed that part of McCain's military record. So the narrow question is whether it is or not. Most of us here, including Nick of all people, agree with Clark. Further, for Jube to imply that the swiftboaters merely "downplayed" Kerry's military record is the understatement of the century.

There's nothing obtuse about pointing out where the alleged linguistic victim used the same terms in referring to herself or her husband. I'm sorry, Northgate, but you made it sound like Faux News came up with that "slur." They didn't. They took Michelle's lead. Bueno?

You guys go for it re: McCain. Just don't pretend that you have some moral high ground afterwards, K? You're defending the very thing that you were outraged about when it happened to Kerry.

Shoe, other foot. Other foot, shoe... political expedience rules the day in the value-less and unprincipled times we live in.

This post is one of the most grotesquely indefensible things I've seen here, and that's saying something.

Top to bottom. Jesus. Maybe "value-less and unprincipled times" have something to do with certain elements of the citizenry being willing to shovel ignorance and bullshit like it was something to be proud of?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

certain elements of the citizenry being willing to shovel ignorance and bullshit like it was something to be proud of

Certain elements? That's the wanna-be "moral high ground" I was referring to.

And BTW... it takes a special kind of ignorance of the consequences of socialism, as well as a politician willing to bullshit about programs we cannot afford, to come up with this current breed of Democratic populism.

As far as McCain goes, Clark is correct on a purely factual basis. Airspeed velocity, or lack thereof, is not a blanket qualification for POTUS. I just think it's funny that all of you that screamed about "you can't talk about people's military service" are now on the other side of the issue. It was sacred before, worthy of outrage. No longer. You can scream "it's different" all day. The same "it's different" that is applied to every double standard.

It is the "why" he's saying what he's saying that matters. Clark knows that McCain pwns BHO on the experience and military issue, so THAT is why he's going after it. He is, quite clumsily IMHO, attacking a perceived strength of McCain, while forgetting that BHO has zero to point to in the areas of experience and military issues.

If there is nothing wrong with it, why did Obama attempt to distance himself from the comments?

i just think it's funny that all of you that screamed about "you can't talk about people's military service" are now on the other side of the issue. It was sacred before, worthy of outrage. No longer. You can scream "it's different" all day. The same "it's different" that is applied to every double standard.

No one is denigrating McCain's military service. No one is making *any* disparaging comments or criticism about the facts underlying his service to this country. Clark's point is just that getting shot down isn't a qualification for President whether it's McCain or anyone else. How that is the "same" as challenging the facts underlying Kerry's service is completely freaking bonkers.

Certain elements? That's the wanna-be "moral high ground" I was referring to.

And BTW... it takes a special kind of ignorance of the consequences of socialism, as well as a politician willing to bullshit about programs we cannot afford, to come up with this current breed of Democratic populism.

Do what now? Are there socialists in the room with you? Are they taking your stuff?

Quote:

As far as McCain goes, Clark is correct on a purely factual basis. Airspeed velocity, or lack thereof, is not a blanket qualification for POTUS. I just think it's funny that all of you that screamed about "you can't talk about people's military service" are now on the other side of the issue. It was sacred before, worthy of outrage. No longer. You can scream "it's different" all day. The same "it's different" that is applied to every double standard.

1. SBVT: John Kerry is a fucking liar, a cheat, opportunist and he only used his service in Vietnam as a catapult for the presidency because he idolized Kennedy.

2. Clark: Being a veteran doesn't necessarily qualify you to be president.

Yup. EXACTLY the same.

Your response? A bizarre recasting of the objections to calling Kerry a fucking liar, cheat and opportunist as nothing more than "you can't talk about military service" because it's "sacred", and, hey, look! That's what McCain's people are saying, so, the same!

Which is either shameless or very, very sad, depending on whether it arises out of profound cynicism or lethal stupidity. Or, to be charitable, a cognitive disorder of some sort. And please don't tell me that saying so makes me all arrogant and elitist and shit; what you've said here is completely nonsensical, by any reasonable standard. If we have to pretend otherwise, the terrorists win.

Quote:

It is the "why" he's saying what he's saying that matters. Clark knows that McCain pwns BHO on the experience and military issue, so THAT is why he's going after it.

You only need the "why" to matter because the "what" is so fucking benign.

Quote:

He is, quite clumsily IMHO, attacking a perceived strength of McCain, while forgetting that BHO has zero to point to in the areas of experience and military issues.

Again, as has been asked dozens of times, HOW IN THE NAME OF FUCK IS WHAT CLARK SAID EVEN REMOTELY AN ATTACK? You can't just keep rattling on like Clark's remarks were an easily misconstrued rumor and we have to take your word for it. We've all seen the video. We've all seen just how mild a passing reference it was. We are all starting to suspect that you are insane.

Quote:

If there is nothing wrong with it, why did Obama attempt to distance himself from the comments?

Because he is a politician watching in astonishment as the national media have a collective orgasm at the opportunity to give the echo chamber full voice.

But let's keep it simple: you tell us. What, specifically, is "wrong" about remarking that military service doesn't necessarily qualify one for the presidency? Are you saying that that's untrue?
That military service, does, in fact, bestow presidential credentials?

Is it also true, then, that no military service disqualifies a candidate? Should we write that into the Constitution?

Help me out here, because it appears you want the campaign to be a Seinfeld episode: about nothing.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

If we assume that military service unto itself prepares someone for the White House, then every single veteran qualifies for the job.

Several million of them.

Many of these people volunteered, many were at points drafted, and the wars changed them, forever. Our country asked them to do hideous things, to suffer unimaginable things and then to come home and be normal human beings again (and often to suffer again because of lack of support). Many can, some can't.

Over the years, I have known many people who have served in the military, some with distinction and some of high rank, but that doesn't make me feel they are particularly qualified to lead the country.

A 16-year-old student asked me today: "Why do Americans love war so much that this is even an issue? If this were an election in another country, wouldn't many American politicians express reservations about the candidate's service record, simply because he was on the other side during such and such war and could possibly be a war-monger? I mean, come on, Mandela was on America's terrorist watch list?"

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

So Jub, I take it you still are unwilling/unable to produce a response to my post quoted below. Are you not even going to attempt to jump this hurdle?

Come one, give it a whirl. It'll be fun.

And before you attempt to claim it, no, you have not answered the question in any way, shape or form as of yet. That's why about a bunch of people have asked it 20 times or so.

Things I do not want:
Off-topic rants about socialists
Off-topic rants about Obama
Off-topic rants about Kerry
Any of the other off-topic rants you've gone on that presume that what Clark said was some sort of horrific attack / downplay. That's all we've managed to get out of you so far. None of theses address the damn question at issue.

What was bad / out of bounds about what Clark said?

Simple
Fucking
Question

Please answer it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flounder

How did Clark downplay McCain's military record? Please explain this to me.

We're like 10 posts into this and you're still unwilling/unable to explain.

That McCain has a history of outbursts, however, is troubling to me. What if, in the middle of tense negotiations with a foreign power, he suddenly curses at their leader?

You have in the article GOP senators suggesting McCain has not worked up much goodwill, even with members of his own party, not to mention "everybody has got a McCain story." Doesn't sound like someone fit to lead a country which happens to be one of many nations.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

Things I do not want:
Off-topic rants about socialists
Off-topic rants about Obama
Off-topic rants about Kerry
Any of the other off-topic rants you've gone on that presume that what Clark said was some sort of horrific attack / downplay. That's all we've managed to get out of you so far. None of theses address the damn question at issue.

I really could give a shit about what Flounder wants, honestly.

Quote:

Simple
Fucking
Question

Please answer it.

Read. My Fucking. Post.

Quote:

As far as McCain goes, Clark is correct on a purely factual basis.

It is the "why" he's saying what he's saying that matters. Clark knows that McCain pwns BHO on the experience and military issue, so THAT is why he's going after it. He is, quite clumsily IMHO, attacking a perceived strength of McCain, while forgetting that BHO has zero to point to in the areas of experience and military issues.

Hard to deal with reality isn't it? Hey, it's just a forum. A tiny one at that. Thing is, when a certain FACT comes along, it changes everything. I am not trying to change the world here. I just know that overall that this topic is really, really dead. It's become personal now. I won't go any farther with it. You shouldn't defend yourself with this feeble, old war whore.

We all should be discussing the FACT that this gang of idiots in the White House (ALL OF THEM) have game planned the next world war. It's on the table. It's set.

Again. What is it exactly that Clark said that was so goddamn offensive?

Apparently in addition to not being a goggle slave, you don't read the links provided by those of us who do provide them.

Quote:

Over the weekend, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said that McCain is untested and untried, and elaborated that, I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president. Clark, you may remember, ran for president in 2004 on his record as a career military officer, so his comment, which he has not retracted, was not just morally offensive but self-discrediting.

Now I've conceded that getting shot down isn't a qualification for president or proof of leadership. I've even said that being in the military isn't necessarily a leadership qualification. However Clark went further than that and said McCain had never in his 71 years been tested or tried on matters of leadership. That is not credible. McCain did hold leadership positions within the Navy by commanding a squadron. Clark claims it wasn't during wartime and thus... what being a captain suddenly doesn't count? As the author from the link notes, not only is the claim ridiculous, it is self-discrediting.Clark served from 1966-2000. Do only the years when he was commanding pilots to drop bombs on Serbians count as being tested and tried?

McCain served for eight years beyond the end of the Vietnam war. According to Clark those years don't count. It is nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

"Weep"? For that pathetic exercise in ludicrous equivalency? How about "snort derisively"?

Things like "Obama is a Muslim" doesn't count because the McCain camp can claim innocence while the party hacks fan the flames-- standard Republican operating procedure.

Meanwhile, simply asking if a military background means you are the better candidate apparently borders on depravity.

It's a fact that McCain is the candidate that seems most comfortable with military solutions to international problems (and by "most comfortable", I mean "appears to be champing at the bit").
It seems perfectly reasonable to then wonder if his military experience has actually made him loath to reach for that option, as he claims, or not.

Is it your contention, Nick, that wondering aloud about McCain's reluctance to exercise force is some kind of beyond the pale slur?

As far as Kerry goes, you must know by now that the idea that "200" guys who "served with" Kerry had direct, observational things to say about his performance is simply a stupid lie, yeah? That, given the animosity and bitterness that surrounded and surrounds the war in Viet Nam, rounding up 200 vets who were in Viet Nam at the same time as Kerry who would be willing to say mean things about him isn't exactly rocket science?

Oh yeah, you could care less what's true or not, you just like to spin your little webs on teh internets. Crow, cock man, crow!

Hey Adda, I'm still waiting for the links of where you are publicizing your views. I'm begging you... please!

First I posted the links that noted according to you that Hillary Clinton and her whole campaign must have been "Republican party hacks." She was the one who answered ambivalently about whether Obama was a Muslim. Her campaign released the photo of him in native dress, etc. It was her campaign that kept noting Obama's problems with whites and did so very loudly.

I addressed the military bit above, I hope you can read. You can enjoy answering your own loaded questions.

You contend that rounding up 200 guys against Kerry isn't rocket science. Then again, I've said bring it on, do the same to McCain. I've begged for it. It isn't rocket science Adda so get to stepping and find them.

If they wanted to hammer the point home they would note what was asked, the quote from Clark claiming McCain was "untested and untried." Additionally they would note that Clark undermines his own authority and service by claiming that lack of wartime service somehow means you haven't gained leadership.

However think about that reasoning for a moment. Clark sounds like a warmonger himself. You know the only time you truly are tried and tested is when you are firing a bullet or dropping a bomb. The rest of the time you are just a wimp. Is that really a line of reasoning you and the Democrats want to endorse?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Barack Obama's plan is to bring every combat brigade home within 16 months.

His plan squarely aligns with what the American people want. Whatever McCain's plan is for bringing most of our troops home, it taint anytime within two years.

Bringing most of our troops home from Iraq within 1-2 years isn't Utopian.

His plan was also to accept public funding, to filibuster FISA, etc. I personally watched the debate where he and Hillary would not take a pledge to have those combat troops home by the end of their first term. Plans can change and Obama would not give his word. Additionally I've never read that he would bring them home instead of redeploying them throughout the Middle East. This is also what I personally heard him claim when asked this question at the same debate.

Quote:

Excuse my imprecise language:

"Supporter of this war" meaning supportive of a continued presence in Iraq of most of our troops, a position expressly opposite to the desires of the American people.

When the American people are given a choice between a positive (bringing troops home) or a negative (staying there) of course they are going to choose the positive. Who wouldn't?

The reality though is that in questioning that is non-utopian, we have to consider trade-offs when bringing the troops home, not just a list of "wants." If the entire region destabilizes, if terror attacks begin to reassert themselves, if certain countries now feel they can kick out inspector and go nuclear for example. Where is the questioning that considers the trade-offs of bringing the troops home? I gave examples of such questioning.

Quote:

What?

Why are the only reliable poll questions those that assume ending the war is a bad idea?

Let's have a question that asks "would you end the war if the sky would rain freaking skittles?"

The war can end and we can go back to treating terrorism as a law enforcement solution. The reality with regard to that though is that terror attacks still continued when we were doing that.

There are a lot of points that can be debated with regard to Bush, his handing of terror and Iraq and what worked to what degree. What cannot be debated though is that trying terrorists as criminals did not stop the attacks. WTC attack one, U.S.S. Cole, etc. all the attacks are there for anyone with a memory or a google slave on retainer.

Welcome back trumptman. Good points. I am disaffected myself. On one hand you have John McCain, a PTSD asshole supreme who will send this country into the abyss with another crusade against "Islamic fascist extremists" or Barack Hussein Obama, an inexperienced African American with a "Please Shoot Me" target on his lapel that bent over and took it from the AIPAC douche bags like all the others.

If anything come out of this, it will be the same old shit. And I'm seriously thinking of leaving this overweight, stupid, ignorant country if it continues.

That does not address the substance of the question in any way, because the question (once again) still stands.

How did Clark "go after" McCain's military experience? He praised it!

You either won't formulate a response, or you know that you can't.

Coward.

I love you libs.

You're demanding, in your characteristic style, that I "respond" in a way that you want. I've already responded, and pointed it out to you where I did. The issue is not the substance of what Clark said... the issue is twofold... I'll indulge you one last time so you'll get it:

1. You guys made a big deal about adding military service as a campaign talking point. The neo-cons crossed the line with SBVT, and we heard that questioning someone's fitness to lead vis-a-vis their military record is a big no-no. Until now.

2. The reason that Clark is saying all of this... he's doing Obama's bidding. Obama knows he has a problem with both the experience and the military issues. Clark and his ilk are going after a strength that McCain has on Obama, in an attempt to minimize it for political reasons. Got it?

I know you do. You just really are dying for me to hand you something you'd like to hear. No dice, Flounder. Go for the strawman, if you please.

Hard to deal with reality isn't it? Hey, it's just a forum. A tiny one at that. Thing is, when a certain FACT comes along, it changes everything. I am not trying to change the world here. I just know that overall that this topic is really, really dead. It's become personal now. I won't go any farther with it. You shouldn't defend yourself with this feeble, old war whore.

We all should be discussing the FACT that this gang of idiots in the White House (ALL OF THEM) have game planned the next world war. It's on the table. It's set.

Thread over, please.

Nonsense. I apologize for having a life and posting here once a day during that life. Here is what got in the way of replying to you yesterday....

1. Swimming for several hours.
2. BBQ'ing a ton of chicken breasts so children and adults could enjoy a ton of Mexican food.
3. Some damn good guacamole.
4. A few beers and Soco's.

It is a daily agenda I hope to repeat several more times. If you get ignored today, I suggest you adopt it as well.

I personally watched the debate where he and Hillary would not take a pledge to have those combat troops home by the end of their first term. Plans can change and Obama would not give his word. Additionally I've never read that he would bring them home instead of redeploying them throughout the Middle East. This is also what I personally heard him claim when asked this question at the same debate.

Regardless, the choice isn't between one candidate who pledged to get troops out of Iraq before the end of his first term and another candidate who did not make such a pledge. The choice is between one candidate who plans to stay in Iraq indefinitely and another who plans to remove all combat brigades within 16 months. If you're within the majority of the American public on this question, Obama's plan aligns best with what you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

When the American people are given a choice between a positive (bringing troops home) or a negative (staying there) of course they are going to choose the positive. Who wouldn't?

The reality though is that in questioning that is non-utopian, we have to consider trade-offs when bringing the troops home, not just a list of "wants." If the entire region destabilizes, if terror attacks begin to reassert themselves, if certain countries now feel they can kick out inspector and go nuclear for example. Where is the questioning that considers the trade-offs of bringing the troops home? I gave examples of such questioning.

Bringing troops home isn't a Utopian goal.

And I think if you're going to demand poll questions that assume ending the war is a bad thing, you should balance those questions with poll questions that assume ending the war is a good thing. Whether the public wants to bring troops home is an entirely neutral question.